Automatic typing

[John Colvin]

On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 09:31:04 UTC, JS wrote:
> On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:51:53 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 July 2013 at 06:38:20 UTC, JS wrote:
>>> well duh, but it is quite a simple mathematical problem and 
>>> your counter-example is not one at all.
>>>
>>> For a statically typed language all types must be known at 
>>> compile time... so you can't come up with any valid 
>>> counter-example. Just because you come up with some 
>>> convoluted example that seems to break the algorithm does not 
>>> prove anything.
>>>
>>> Do you agree that a function's return type must be known at 
>>> compile time in a statically typed language? If not then we 
>>> have nothing more to discuss... (Just because you allow a 
>>> function to be compile time polymorphic doesn't change 
>>> anything because each type that a function can possibly 
>>> return must be known)
>>
>> As a compiler implementer, Timon is probably way more 
>> competent than you are on the question. You'll get anything 
>> interesting to add by considering you know better.
>>
>> The type of problem he mention are already present in many 
>> aspect of D and makes it really hard to compile in a 
>> consistent way accross implementations. Adding new one is a 
>> really bad idea.
>>
>> If you don't understand what the problem is, I suggest you to 
>> study the question or ask questions rather than try to make a 
>> point.
>
> You can't be as smart as you think or you would know that 
> "proof by authority" is a fallacy.

Authority is not proof, but many years of experience provide a 
perspective that is worth serious consideration. Which is what 
deadalnix said.